As you will see,
most of the responses are not of my own. I quote and offer links to other websites that
already have addressed the issues at hand. Most of these charges have already been
answered already. I just want to thank James for giving us a comprehensive article filled
with anti Islamic charges so that I would be able to provide a comprehensive rebuttal to
all those charges.

A lot of the
arguments posed could actually be used with greater force against the bible, however he
keeps sliding away from these arguments by saying that Jesus abolished the Old Testament
laws. Something that he did not do (Mark 7:6-13, 10:10-12, Matthew 15:3-8, Luke 5:14, 35)

Lets begin..

James
said:

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian
officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no.
nine), but also for drinking alcohol.

In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men
were caned in front of the mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could
see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers
and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90-91; they do
not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. This poor
"criminal" was brought to Muhammad who became angry: The Prophet felt it hard
(was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker
dragged into Muhammads presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774-6775)

My Response:

James puts the word criminal in quotation marks in order to
sarcastically show that the person did not commit such a huge crime. Well he did, because
he broke the law of God (no drinking and gambling allowed) and the law of the Islamic
state, which clearly prohibited the consumption of alcohol and gambling. Where did the men
get the alcohol?They must have illegally
made it.

Now instead of throwing the man in jail just like what was
done during the time of Prohibition (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html), which actually doesnt
help, the man was beaten. He was also beaten while he was in the state of drunkenness and
probably did not feel that much pain. But he surely deserved such a punishment. This
method proved to be a successful method of alcohol prohibition.

Alcohol and gambling can have harmful effects on the
society, therefore it is a crime punishable by the Islamic society it self.

James
said:

Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic, when he is dragged before Muhammad and
his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he always seem to go
immediately to corporal punishment?

The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to
examine them here.

It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent.
No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental
Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in
them.

My Response

As Christians and Muslims and probably even every human
being alike knows, every man is born and inclined to sin. No matter what laws are ever
instituted, there will always be people to break it. Muslims are not saying that when
Islamic law is implemented there will be zero crime. No, there will always be crime when
the devil is around whispering into peoples ears to sin. However, when Islamic law
is applied, crime drops significantly as to when compared with the other man made laws.

Reports from South Sulawesi indicated that crime rates did, in fact, drop sharply following the introduction of
stricter Islamic practices. However, there was energetic opposition to the new policies.
Some legal experts warned that the regulations contradict the country's Constitution,
while some residents, both Muslims and non-Muslims, complained that the Government was
meddling in citizens' private lives.

Of course there would be people complaining because they
believed in their countrys constitution. But notice that the crime rates did drop
and at the end of the day that is all that matters.

He asks why Muhammad did not offer any rehabilitation. First
rehabilitation does not always work and it takes a long time to be effective in order for
it to work anyway (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/about/f/faq6.htm). But the Islamic
ruling results in quicker and more effective results.

James
said:

Here
is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic
verses on drinking and gambling. It also analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.

and will only
respond to what I find worth responding to. What is in black font is what
James wrote and in red font is my response.

First Prohibition (of sorts): yes and no

Maududi says
that most of Sura 2 was revealed shortly after Muhammads Hijrah (Emigration from
Mecca to Medina) in AD 622. The following verse in Sura 2 shows that Muhammad partially or
confusedly permitted or condemned drinking and gambling at that time (Maududi, vol. 1, p.
161, note 235).

2:219 They
ask you [Prophet] about intoxicants and gambling: say, "There is great sin in both,
and some benefit for people: the sin is greater than the benefit." They ask you what
they should give: say, "Give what you can spare."

In no way is
this verse a clear and uncompromising edict on the two personal practices of drinking
alcohol and gambling. (Islam teaches that all intoxicants are criminal; cf. Bukhari,
Drinks, vol. 7, nos. 5579-5589; Muslim no. 7186.) It seems contradictory to call the two
acts mostly sinful but partially beneficial. It may be argued that alcohol is sinful in
its morality, but beneficial in its health for the body (e.g. helping digestion). However,
Allah will later prohibit it completely, so either it is sinful morally regardless of the
year on the Muslim calendar, or it is not.

Allah says that there are benefits so that
people would not go ahead and say its okay to drink, because it has benefits.
God knew there would be people who say that. So God is simply saying that the harm is more
than the good. Its like me saying yes smoking does relieve stress, however
dont smoke because it can cause lung cancer. There is no contradiction, as a
matter of fact it is only the wisdom of the quran so that people can better comprehend
that alcohol is indeed harmful to us and we have no excuse for drinking it.

Second
Prohibition: only during prayer

According to the
historical evidence and the content of Sura 4, Maududi says that the sura was revealed
between the timeframe of AD 625 and 627, because various verses indicate different events.
For example, vv. 1-28 speak of the Battle of Uhud in AD 625. Verse 102 indicates a
military expedition in AD 626 during which Muhammad taught his Muslims how to pray while
out on campaign. Verse 43 takes place during another military expedition in AD 627 when he
taught his holy military warriors how to perform ablutions (washings) with pure dust if
water was not available.

Maududi
speculates that the target verse 43 came at the chronological beginning of the entire sura
and therefore early in AD 625 because many Muslims showed up intoxicated for public
prayers "and made blunders in their recitations" of Quranic passages. So
Muhammad had to correct the problem. However, some hadith passages (the hadith is the
reports of Muhammads words and actions outside of the Quran) say that some Muslim
warriors showed up at the Battle of Uhud intoxicated and died, but this was before Allah
had prohibited it, so they were not held responsible (Sura 5:93; see Bukhari, Oppressions,
vol. 3, no 2463; Jihad, vol. 4, no. 2815; Commentary, vol. 6, nos. 4618, 4620).

Regardless of
the exact timeframe, for our purposes all we need to know is that Sura 4 was revealed
between Sura 2 (see above) and Sura 5 (see below). Thus, Allahs "eternal"
revelations on the morality of drinking intoxicants are changing according to external
circumstances.

Because the
Muslims showed up intoxicated for public prayer, "they changed the timings of their
drinking so as not to clash with the timings of their prayers," says Maududi (vol. 1,
p. 337, note 65). So Muhammad prohibited drunkenness only during prayers. This means that
Muslims were permitted to drink some alcohol in between the times of prayers, though the
number of prayers per day would limit drunkenness. However, this further means that after
the nighttime prayer, the final one, Muslims could even get drunk. How were the early
Muslims supposed to sort this out? Was alcoholism so bad in the Muslim community that
Muhammad had to tell them to stay away from prayers, but not prohibit alcohol? It is one
thing if he had told them not to show up for prayers drunk, and then to allow them mild
drinking without intoxication. (After all, the Bible distinguishes between mild use of
alcohol and drunkenness, as we will see, below.) But he already said in Sura 2:219 that
intoxicants have sin in them. Also, Sura 5:90-91 will prohibit intoxicants completely. It
is quite odd that in this confused state ofaffairs Muhammad did not
completely and absolutely prohibit intoxication at this time, when the Muslim community
needed it most. Quranic revelation on this matter falls short. How is this guidance?

Prohibiting
alcohol (and gambling) is a religions prerogative, so we should not quibble too much
over this. The real issue is how Muhammad and his early companions dealt with
drunkennessexcessively, as the sections on the hadith and classical legal rulings
show us.

James erroneously
assumes that Allah is changing his mind when it comes to the laws of drinking. You have to
understand the wisdom behind the evolvement of the prohibition of drinking. Allah did not
send down all the laws at one time. The Quran was sent down over a period of 23 years. In
the first 13 years of Mecca, none of these laws were sent down. As a matter of fact, if
you analyze the Meccan Surahs, they all talk about Tawheed, Shirk, Day of Judgment, and
Hell, Heaven etc. This was done in order to first build up the faith of the believers.
Then in Madina, the laws were sent down. This is to teach us that people change gradually
and not just overnight.This is the wisdom
that Muslims even apply today. That if there is a sinner and wishes to turn back to God,
he doesnt conform to all the of laws and quit all the sins he does over night. His
mind would eventually pop and lose hope of ever changing. But a person is to change
gradually.

Drinking was a part
of the lives of the people at that time and Allah in his divine wisdom had them quit
gradually. This was Allahs plan the whole time. But if Allah were to completely
prohibit drinking all at once, it would have been very difficult for them to abide by that
law immediately. This simply shows Allahs mercy and consideration for his creation

In reply,
however, the historical reality behind the words in Sura 5:90-91 contradicts Qutbs
reading of human nature. In this mid- or late Medinan sura, Allah has to remind the
Muslims not to indulge in idols (Qutbs translation of v. 90). This can only mean
that some Muslims were engaged in idolatrous practices when this verse was sent down. Yet
according to Qutb, the oneness of Allah and the evils of polytheism must be commanded at
the first without compromise. Something is wrong here. This shows that human nature is
slow to obey divine commands even in abstract matters like the oneness of
Allahespecially in abstract matters. Then how much more are average humans slow to
obey practical commands against drinking and gambling, which are "well-entrenched
social habits" (vol. 1, p. 332)? Therefore, in the progressive revelations of Allah
and his prophet and in Qutbs defense of them, they misread human nature,

They were
polytheists since the day they were born, you cannot just go up to a person and tell him
that the religion he has been practicing all his life is wrong. Of course it takes time.
Of course the oneness of God is first priority. They needed to change spiritually first
before abiding to the more physical laws (such as not consuming alcohol) and they did. The
reason God is sending down this verse as a reminder could be for several reasons. I will
name 2.

1-In order to reassure them that
the idols they have been worshipping are false gods just incase they were beginning to
miss worshipping them.

2-Because of Islamic critics who
keep claiming that Muhammad worshipped idols, therefore this is a clear-cut verse to shut
those critics up.

Also, when the
final revelation came down in Sura 5:90-91, Qutb reports on the miraculous results in
these words:

All the
Muslims stopped drinking. Once the command was given, all wine containers were emptied and
broken throughout Madinah [Medina]. Indeed, those who were in the process of drinking did
not swallow what was in their mouths when they were informed of the prohibition. It was,
thus, a great triumph for the Quran and its approach. (vol. 3, p. 155).

Thus, history
demonstrates that the Quranic approach to human frailty is far better than Western (read:
Christian) answers.

The reply to
Qutbs utopian description is not difficult. These last three defenses (the social,
psychological and historical) of the Qurans progressive revelations are contradicted
by the brute facts. It may be true that some Muslims stopped drinking instantaneously
after Sura 5:90-91 was sent down (though these reports seem exaggerated and
counterfactual), but all of the Muslims? Indeed, the hadith and later classical legal
rulings (the next two sections) demonstrate that the results were not always and
exclusively positive. Muhammad had to whip alcohol drinkers, and so did the first
generations of Muslims, that is, the companions of Muhammad, like Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ali.
Later jurists then followed their example and decreed the penalty of whipping drunkards
and even light social drinkers. Thus, Islam follows the less-than-ideal results in the US
during Prohibition, after all.

Not some Muslims
stopped as James said. Look at the quote that Qutb said, he said

All the
Muslims stopped drinking. Once the command was given, all wine containers were
emptied and broken throughout Madinah [Medina]. Indeed, those who were in the process of
drinking did not swallow what was in their mouths when they were informed of the
prohibition. It was, thus, a great triumph for the Quran and its approach. (vol. 3, p. 155).

Once the command was
given all the Muslims stopped drinking. But James said that later on drinkers were being
punished. Well Qutb didnt say All the Muslims stopped
drinking forever

Yes, it is true that
later on in the future Muslims did drink but Qutb was talking at the moment.

But only for sake of
argument, lets say Qutb is wrong and James is right and that not everyone quit drinking.
Like I said before, everyone sins. It is the human being that needs to change. However,
Islam offers the best solution. That gradual change is better than any other
rehabilitation programs out there http://www.soberforever.net/

One of the
deficiencies in Islam is that a Muslim must pay for his own sins. Where does this end? How
can he be assured of getting into heaven? Taking a trip to Mecca? What about all the
Muslims who are unable to do this, especially before modern transportation? In
Christianity, per contra, Jesus pays for the sins of his followers by his death on the
cross. All they have to do is believe in him, and then they are on their way to heaven.
However, it is one thing to make material restitution for ones sins, say, in the
case of theft (restitution is good), but it is quite another to "expiate"
ones sins by self-effort to ensure access to heaven.

You dont understand how tempted I am
to respond to this paragraph and actually show how ridiculous this statement is. Show me
where in the Quran that says you can only attain salvation by going to Mecca! If you are
referring to Hajj then it is only for those who are able to do so.

Surah 3:97

In it are clear signs, the standing place of Ibrahim, and whoever
enters it shall be secure, and pilgrimage to the House is incumbent upon men for the sake
of Allah, (upon) every one who is able to undertake the journey to it; and whoever
disbelieves, then surely Allah is Self-sufficient, above any need of the worlds.

However, this will take us off topic.

All I wanted to do is show this verse from
the bible and now we can move on.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor
children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (Bible, Deuteronomy 24:16, NIV)

Jesus offers to freely help all those who ask him. He does not flog sinners or the
needy. Not even the Old Testament, which can impose harsh laws, commands physical
punishment for drunkenness.

James does not like
harsh Islamic laws but he is okay with the bibles harsh laws. Ironic isnt it?
He is okay with people being executed for cursing their own parents (Leviticus 20:9). This
is a law that Jesus reminded his followers of in Mark 7:10.

James does not have
a problem with this law but he is not okay with Islamic rulings. It is truly ironic.

The Old Testament on alcohol is clear. It allows people to drink, but only in
moderation. It condemns drunkenness. Gambling will be analyzed in the section
"Application," below.

Moderate drinkers most likely become heavy drinkers anyway
so why the risk? Islam does not like to take risks. It ensures the safety of society.
There is no necessity at all for drinking alcohol in any way and should be totally
prohibited even if it takes force to do so (just like the fight on drugs).

Additionally a Christian can use the same argument.
Now if it is okay for me to drink but not get drunk, it is also okay for me to smoke
marijuana and not get high

Anyways throughout
the rest of the article, James just posts hadith that shows that drinkers are being
punished (by beating) and tries to show that this is cruel. I have just one response to
that.

If someone has the
guts and the nerve to break the commandment of God, to go against the law of the country
and to influence and affect the society with that poison (alcohol) then he certainly
deserves such a punishment and that punishment reduces alcohol consumption better than any
other system.

Saudi television
aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three-fourths
of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods
that husbands may use to hit their wives.

My Response

Lets read what the scholar said,

On
pages 86-87, Mustafa states: "The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind
anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]." He adds, "It is forbidden
to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and
head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that
must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are
caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard." [1]

Mustafa
noted in his book that the aim of the beating was to cause the woman to feel some
emotional pain, without humiliating her or harming her physically.
According to him, wife-beating must be the last resort to which the husband turns in
punishing his wife, and is, according to the Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 34, the husband's
third step when the wife is rebellious: First, he must reprimand her, without anger. Next,
he must distance her from the conjugal bed. Only if these two methods fail should the
husband turn to beating.

4:34 . . . If
you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore
them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act
against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran,
Oxford UP, 2004)

My Response:

Lets look at the translation by Yusuf Ali.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more
(strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the
righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would
have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct,
admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly);
but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is
Most High, great (above you all).

Notice the pattern, first admonish then leave them in bed
then the beating. These all signify emotional punishments. Secondly, Islamic critics might
be stubborn and want to take the literal word daraba as in beating physically. But
lets not forget why God has sent Prophet Muhammad (Surah 16, verse 44) and Prophet
Muhammad has made it clear what is meant by the word daraba in the verse.

James
said:

The hadith says
that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the
context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa'a
divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said
that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband
and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit
of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I
have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is
greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)

The explanation basically says that the Prophet either push
her on her chest with an open hand or pushed her on her chest with a closed fist. HE DID
NOT PUNCH HER, HE PUSHED HER with a closed fist. So it probably caused her a little pain.
This is no way shows the Prophet to be a wife abuser.

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer
incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example,
women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings.

My Response:

And it is true

James
said:

But these results of fewer incidents of sexual
"crimes" may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the
oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts womens social mobility and rights,
the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars.
In Iran, the law oppresses women. For instance, womens testimony counts
half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

In 2005, an Iranian
court orders a mans eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and
blinding him in both eyes.

The Quran says:

5:45 And We
ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth
for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of
charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which
Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali
and Khan, the Noble Quran, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage
allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye
for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the
plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge
oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.

The hadith and
later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do
the three modern examples linked above.

Please go here
for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.

Islamic law
calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re-impose the old law of
retaliationliterally, though the evidence suggests that the Torah never intended the
law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates. Muhammads
understanding of the Torah was incomplete and confused.

One of the
oddest traditions, recorded multiple times, says that if someone damages an eye of a
"Peeping Tom," no sin is accrued. Says the prophet: "If someone is peeping
(looking secretly) into your house without your permission, and you throw a stone at him
and destroy his eyes, there will be no sin on you." This rule is not surprising
because Muhammad aimed an arrow at the head of "a Peeping Tom" in order to hit
him. Muhammad also said to another gazer that if the prophet had been sure that "you
were looking at me (through the door), I would have poked your eye with this (sharp iron
bar)" (Ad Diyat, no. 6888; cf. nos. 6889, 6902; Asking Permission, vol. 8, nos. 6241
and 6242; Dress, vol. 7, no. 5924).

At first, this
retaliation may seem deserving or even humorous, but analyzed more deeply, it is serious
and disproportionate. Anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to
Islam must conclude that "destroying" an eye is not equal to looking into a
house without permission. True, the violator should be punished, but excess is never just,
and this punishment is excessive, not equal, as qisas implies. What does this vengeful
violence and destruction say about Muhammads capacity to be rightly guided? One
would expect more self-restraint from the Allah-inspired prophet, instead of nearly poking
a mans eye with sharp iron or with an arrow, though the mans act was wrong. He
should have been arrested and warned. If he had persisted, he should have spent some time
in jail.

My Response:

Let me respond and rephrase what James said. ANYONE WHOSE
MIND HAS NOT BEEN CLOUDED BY A LIFETIME OF DEVOTION TO CHRISTIANITY AND HATRED TO ISLAM
MUST CONCLUDE THAT ISLAM IS THE TRUE RELIGION OF GOD AND THAT MODERN DAY CHRISTIANITY CAN
NEVER BE.

How does James respond to the fact that millions of people
have converted to Islam in the past century voluntarily? (http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/4.php)
They havent been devoted to Islam all their lives. They know about the cutting of
the hand law. They are okay with it. You know why? Because they dont commit the same
logical fallacy as you. That fallacy is that you reject something just because you
dont comprehend it. Regardless of it being the truth or not.

How can people justify God commanding the killing of women,
children and animals? (1 Samuel 15:3).

Anyways I am not here to attack the bible but it just amazes
me when all these horrible things are found in the bible and not in Islam and yet
Christians insist on attacking Islam. It is so ironic.

Again, people can say well wouldnt it have been
better if this punishment was applied besides that harsh punishment etc. Islam is
very direct and strict when it comes to crime. If we were to be lenient, crime would climb
to the roof.

Even Jesus said in Matthew 5:29-30

29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is
better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.
It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into
hell.

Potentially, the law of retaliation is irreversible if
it is wrongly applied. This is seen in the case of two men mistakenly accusing a man of
theft, which is penalized by cutting
off the hand. Ali, Muhammads son-in-law and cousin, accepted the two mens
testimony and cut off the accused mans hand. Afterwards, a fourth man stepped
forward and showed that the now disfigured man did not commit the theft. Ali accepted his
testimony, but it was too late. The mans hand was already cut off. The punishment
could not be reversed. Ali told the two accusers: "If I were of the opinion that you
have intentionally given false witness, I would cut off your hands." This hadith is
found in the context of the law of retaliation, which would have been like-for-like
mutilation of the two accusers. But this second punishment would have been a mistake
compounded on a mistake, even in a courtroom overseen by a competent judge. This is
precisely why the law of retaliation should not even exist, not to mention this unjust
punishment for theft. The actual imposing of the law is irreversible and therefore
excessive (Ad-Diyat, no. 6895).

My Response:

Well you cannot blame Islamic Law; you have to blame the
people that falsely accused the person. How many people have been wrongfully executed for
crimes that they havent committed? Does that mean we abolish the death penalty?

Or does that mean it is the fault of the poor police
investigation regarding the case?

James
said:

In this section we focus on retaliation (qisas), not on blood-wit or indemnities
(diya). First, the Shafi School is examined.

My Response:

Yes, James wants people to forget that Islam offers the
other two options and only wants to show that Islam is a vengeful religion.

Throughout the article James tries to show that Christians
and Jews have interpreted Leviticus 24:17-22 and Deuteronomy as meaning for it to be an
indemnity. I just love how James said this

To conclude this section, even if we assume, contrary to the bulk of the evidence, that
the law of retaliation was actually and physically carried out when it was first published
in Exodus 21:23-25, Judaism later evolved towards the
more humane monetary compensation, finding verses in the Torah that pointed in
that direction. However, the evidence suggests that the three passages laying out the law
of retaliation were not literally carried out; rather, the words stand for equality in
punishment and damages.

In other words, Jews stopped following the law sent down to
them and decided to interpret things that best fit them (like Jesus accused them of in
Mark 7:9) and thought they can take things in to their own hands and misinterpret the laws
to what they best see fit (look at Jeremiah 8:8)

James also says that indemnity and forgiveness was
encouraged in the bible, but he forgets to mention that it is also mentioned in the Quran.

Surah 16:126

And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for
those who are patient.

Quran encourages forgiveness so that people can have a
reward from Allah.

Surah 42:40

42:40.The recompense for an injury is an injury equal
thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is
due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong.

Islam does not encourage revenge but permits it. It should
be no worse than the affliction caused to the victim as indicated by the Quranic verse
above. This is every persons right. James did not indicate that clearly enough and
tried to show Islam as a vengeful religion while as a matter of fact it encourages
forgiveness and gives people their rights (right to choose to have revenge on the person
or not).

He tries to show Jesus as a loving person and Muhammad as a
violent vengeful person.

Let me ask you something, I want you to close your eyes and
truly imagine this. Imagine someone gauges your right eyeball out. Are you going to take
Jesuss so called advice in the bible and let him gauge our your left eye as well or
are you going to practice one of the 3 options that Islam gives you

1-Forgive him

2-Ask for blood money

3-The right to ask for his right eye to be gauged out as
well so that he can understand how you feel.

James
said:

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must
have a hand cut off.

Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should
never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal
word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick
radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.

Warning! This page
has photos of thieves getting their hands chopped off. They also show beheadings.

gold every lunar year), and every
convicted robber has his or her hands

chopped off as a punishment. Will
the rate of theft and robbery in America

increase, remain same or decrease?
Naturally it will decrease. Moreover

the existence of such a stringent
law would discourage many a potential

robber.

I agree that the amount of theft
that takes place in the world today is so

tremendous that if you chop off the
hands of all the thieves, there will be

tens of thousands of people whose
hands will be chopped off. The point

here is that the moment you
implement this law the rate of theft will decline

immediately. The potential robber
would give it a serious thought before

jeopardizing his limbs. The mere
thought of the punishment itself will

discourage majority of the robbers.
There will barely be a few who would

rob. Hence only a few persons
hands would be chopped off but millions

would live peacefully without fear
of being robbed.

Islamic Shariah is therefore
practical, and achieves results.

James
said:

The Quran says:

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are
male or female, as punishment for what they have donea deterrent from God: God is
almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God
will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance
before the thiefs hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that
repentance is acceptable only after mutilation.

My Response:

James is incorrect, the man does not need to repent by
turning himself in and get his hand cut off. His hand should be cut off if he is caught.
But he can ask for normal forgiveness and repent if he doesnt get caught
(3:135-136,4:149, 16:119,24:22, 25:70, 39:53-54,42:37,42:40)

If the man wishes to turn himself in and have his hand cut
off, this is called tawbah nasoooha (Surah 66, verse 8) and is the best of
repentance.

If you also look at Bukhari 8:6825, it shows that the
Prophet wanted the adulterer to repent in private. This could also apply to stealing.

James
said:

Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter,
Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would
still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

My Response:

This is one of the proofs that the Prophet was truly sincere
and was a messenger of God. If he truly was the author of the Quran as critics claimed
then he would not have had the law applied to his loved ones. Especially his daughter whom
he loved so dearly. But this was the law of God and had to be equally applied to everyone.

James
said:

If the reader would like to see more hadith passages,
modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the
Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting
article.

My Response:

First I want to make perfectly clear that no other system in
the world can fight the crime of theft better than Islam. All countries are having
trouble.

A negative correlation between the risk of punishment and the rate of crime was taken
as support for the theory that an increased risk of punishment leads to a fall in crime.
In England and Wales they found strong support for the theory that 'links falling risk of
punishment to rising crime'.(Langan, P. and Farrington, D., Crime and Justice
in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Washington: US Department of
Justice, 1998, p. 38)

After 1981 the conviction rate in England and Wales fell and the crime rate (whether
based on victim surveys or police records) rose. Similarly, the incarceration rate fell
and the crime rate rose. However, the correlations between the severity of punishment and
the crime rate were mixed. There was, however, a strong link between the severity of
punishment of car thieves and the rate of vehicle theft. After 1981, the proportion of car
thieves sentenced to prison, their average sentence, the time served and the percentage of
sentence served, as well as the number of days of actual incarceration, all fell. During
this time, vehicle theft rose according to both the British Crime Survey and police
records.

Conclusions

Is the Blair Government pursuing the right policies? The Government is ambiguous about
prison. In its 2002 white paper, Justice For All, it says that it wants to send the
'strongest possible message' to criminals that the system will be effective in 'detecting,
convicting and properly punishing them'. So far so good: after many years of being opposed
to prison and favouring community sentences, the Government now recognises that prison
protects the public more effectively. But prison is to be reserved for 'dangerous, serious
and seriously persistent offenders and those who have consistently breached community
sentences'. For the bulk of criminals, the Government still hopes to find alternatives to
prison that combine community and custodial sentences, including weekend prison and more
intensive supervision by the Probation Service.

This shows that greater the punishment the less the crime
rate. Tell me how high would the crime rate be in a country if Islamic Law was instituted?

This shows that thieves will continue stealing as long as
they are able to do so. Statistics dont lie.

Now tell me, how often are the thieves going to steal again
if Islamic law is implemented?

There is no reason at all for the person to steal. The
person can take a loan, or ask the government for help. Why steal? Why are people so
worried about the Islamic punishment for stealing? Why should you steal in the first
place? Who are you to take other peoples property? Someone might argue well
everyone sins. Then I can use that same argument for someone who commits murder and
then say come on, everyone sins, forgive him!

The truth of the matter is that the Quran is the word of
God. That is what should be debated. You cannot come and disprove the Quran from being the
word of God just because you cannot comprehend a law found in it. Your committing a
logical fallacy and that is that you reject something just because you dont
understand it.

This Islamic punishment does not make sense to you, but it
makes perfect sense to us Muslims. Now, how are we going to determine whose right? We must
not let our subjective opinions be the judge. We must analyze objectively. Objectively, we
can conclude nothing but that Islamic Law achieves results.

God is the one who has given the human being his hands, God
also has the right to set a law for that hand to be removed if His law is broken with
those very hands.

James
said:

6. Islam commands that highway
robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy
Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he
confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy.
The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two
have been carried out in the last twenty years.

My Response:

I would like to see evidence where Islam permits people to
beat the hell out of people for them to admit something if they dont have proof.

James
said:

In 2002 Amnesty International reports
that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997,
amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of
retaliation). Amnesty International has recorded thirty-three amputations and nine
cross-amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

In 2003, in Sudan a sixteen-year-old boy has been sentenced to have his right hand and
left foot amputated for highway robbery.

The Quran says:

5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread
corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation
of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this
world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you
overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next
people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura
5:33-34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey
turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the
camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and
their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs
should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding because Muhammad refused
to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the
renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes:
thirst and loss of blood.

See this short
article for details on another example of Muhammads use of torture.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some
cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

For more information on Muhammads brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out
of it, go to the back-up article.

My Response:

The same answers are given regarding the cutting the hands of the
thief. Obviously armed robbery is worse. The reason why we cant comprehend why Islamic Law
is just because we have never been victims of such brutal crimes. You can never imagine
how it feels for a robber to come into your house with an armed weapon and point it at
your family and potentially torture or injure one of them (God forbid). I would swear to
you, that if we were in that position and we were made judge and had the decision as to
what punishment the criminal must endure. We would definitely choose the Islamic
punishment.

Let me quote Zakir Naik

5. Every Muslim
should be a terrorist

Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment
a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber.
Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such
as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he
should be terrified. It is true that the word terrorist is generally used for
a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a
terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent
people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.

James said:

5. Islam commands that
homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban,
who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered
a stone wall to be pushed over onto three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be
spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in
Articles 108-113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

On April 7, 2005, it
was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for
"gay conduct."

These homosexuals were lucky.
Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammads cousin
and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and
Muhammads punishment of homosexuals: . . . "If you find anyone doing as
Lots people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done" (Abu
Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that
homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira
reported Gods messenger as saying, "Accursed is he who does what Lots
people did." In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali
[Muhammads cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr
[Muhammads chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat,
vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall
being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their
religion.

If the reader would like to see
the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and
excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the
supporting article The article has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of
homosexuals (scroll down to "Supplemental material").

My Response:

First of all,
the killing of homosexuals is there in the bible.

"If
a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their
abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

James says that this is not applicable today. So basically what
James is trying to tell us is that the God he believes in, set an immoral law at a
specific point in time but not anymore.

James tries to show that Jesus was not fulfilling the Old Testament
laws anymore. This is a separate issue. But he appeals to John 8:1-8 to show Jesus
abolished the adultery punishment. But look at the side note in the NIV bible.

((The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other
ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.))

This was an interpolation by people later on to try to show Jesus
abolished the Old Testament laws, while he did not.

James posted this hadith

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported
Gods messenger as saying, "Accursed is he who does what Lots people
did." In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali
[Muhammads cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr
[Muhammads chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (vol. 1, p. 765,
Prescribed Punishments; cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68)

This hadith is false because the Prophet condemned burning people.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith
Number 260.

-----------------------------------------

Narrated By Ikrima : Ali burnt
some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I
would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't
punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.'

James said:

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to
death.

My Response:

The bible also orders adulterers to be stoned

Fornicators (Leviticus 21:9) were to be burned to death.

Jesus did not forgive the adulterous in John 8:1-8, as I
showed above it was an interpolated verse.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.

The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes.
Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you
believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their
punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal
sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to
death, according to Allahs law]. (Hilali and Khan).

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of
the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments,
nos. 6831 and 6833.

The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need
to analyze them here.

My Response:

Notice the Quranic verse. Fornicators and adulterers can
only be punished if there are four witnesses (or if the person voluntarily confesses). Can
someone please tell me how two people can get caught in sexual intercourse by four
trustworthy witnesses. The witnesses actually have to see the penetration
occur.

Why did Allah make it so difficult for these fornicators and
adulterers to get caught? So that they wont have to go through the punishment and so that
they could repent. There are a lot of cases where fornicators and adulterers are being
punished by not having four witnesses. Well then they are breaking the Islamic Law. The
Quranic verse is very clear.

Now if two people do get caught by four witnesses, they
deserve the punishment. Imagine the nerve of those two people to engage in sexual
intercourse in such a public place. They deserve to be punished for such indecency.

According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge
sentenced him to be lashed with eighty-five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though
his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that
lashing can be fatal.

Lord Scarman, the
well-known British judicial champion of civil liberties, writes that "it is important
to a civilised system of justice to have humane values at all levels of its
administration"48 and Islam provides for this. Flogging in Islamic law is
"not just a savage beating inflicted capriciously according to the whims of brutal
guards" but it is done "with control, in accord with justice and in the kindest
possible way in the circumstances"49 to the extent that one English writer
says that "the best comparison for Islamic flogging is the caning of children at
school". 50 Even the President of the International Court of Justice at
the Hague in 1967 declared that "certain types of offences call for severe
chastisement, and flogging in the case of such offences cannot be regarded as cruel,
inhuman or degrading".51

An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days
after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed
co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members
are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be
stopped.

She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned
to death:

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast,
he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he
threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how
effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The
rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the
prophets words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have
cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven
her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need
to analyze them here.

My Response:

If her co- defendant is unmarried then he should be lashed
and not hanged. If he is married then him and the woman should both have the same
punishment. Apparently Islamic Law is not appropriately being implemented. I have my
doubts that they even got 4 trustworthy witnesses against her.

As for the hadith, if you read all of it, you notice that
the woman voluntarily came to the Prophet to be stoned. She knew what was awaiting her. No
one forced her. She came on her own.

How can Muhammad forgive her? It is not Muhammads
laws; it is Gods law.

For the New Testament
section, we ask and answer the simple question: What would Jesus do? The short answer:
forgive, heal and restore the sinnernot flog or stone him to death.

My Response:

Are you kidding me? Where is the justice?!! Forgive?!!

This is an honest question to all the readers out there. I want you
to close your eyes and imagine that you go back home and catch some idiot having sex with
your daughter, sister or wife?!! You are going to just forgive him? That guy knew what he
was doing and he should just be forgiven? Are you kidding me?

They murder them because they feel like there needs to be a
punishment. But if it was in an Islamic state, they would not resort to murder because
they know that the lashing is punishment enough.

What do you mean heal and restore? Sex can be an
addiction, it is more addictive than drugs. Laws must be enforced in order to stop this
filth to be spreading through out our community.

Christians erroneously assume that everyone can change spiritually.
Not everyone can change spiritually; those who can change spiritually shouldnt even
worry about the law in the first place. But what about those who dont and are not
willing to change spiritually? The Law must be implemented on them. Christians dont
follow their bible and dont have any laws or solutions regarding fornication. That
is why it is so common amongst their societies.

But
unfortunately, even in Charismatic circles, fornication is commonly found amongst born
again Christians. This cancer of fornication is rapidly affecting the Body of
Christ, because many Christians who get involved in fornication do not know its
spiritual and physical implications.

To lust after
the things of this world, is to worship them. Covetousness, even though its
unfortunately common amongst Christians, is classified as a sin that should never, ever
been seen among them!

James said:

This is one of the
paradoxes of Islam. A Muslim judge feels as all reasonable persons do when they hear of
such harsh punishments sent down from Allah. But Allah supposedly feels more compassion
than the human judge, while the deity sends the compassionate human to hellfor
compassionately commuting Allahs uncompassionate punishment. This is indeed
difficult to understand.

My Response:

Well we are human; of course our emotions can take over us. I mean
Christians can feel the same way.

A lot of Christians cannot understand how God can send people to
hell for eternity for not believing in Jesus as lord and savior. A lot of them find that
too harsh. But that does not mean that they disbelieve in it.

God is just; he sets his laws according to his divine wisdom. That
is why God is called the All Just. He does not let his emotions overtake His decision to
establish justice.

First, the apologists claim that
these punishments serve as a deterrent. This is implied in Sura 24:2 when the flogging
(and stoning) should be carried out in public: ... "[A]nd ensure that a group of
believers witness the punishment" (Haleem). This public humiliation is designed to
scare other people into obeying the laws of Allah (Maududi 3:319-20, note 4).

In reply, however, this kind of a
priori reasoning is shaky at best. We should not let a revelation determine facts.
More hard evidence needs to be provided that flogging and stoning deter would-be sinners
from committing their crimes. As we shall see in the next section, the punishments may
drive the sinners to conceal their acts more carefully than before. The punishments will
not stop crimes, since the crimes are rooted in human nature itself.

My Response:

Like I previously said, there will always be people who commit sin.
It is common sense that less people are going to commit fornication and adultery with
these laws applied. I do not need to waste my time providing statistics. Everyone knows it
does. Islam offers the person an alternative to have more than one wife if he wishes to
sleep with another woman besides his wife. So why not take that alternative? Something
that modern day Christianity does not offer even though the bible permits it http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm

James said:

As noted in the
previous section and in the part that analyzes purging society of ruinous sins, Muslims
assert that the punishment of stoning an adulterer preserves society and the family. In
reply, however, it is difficult to imagine a punishment that does just the opposite.
Depriving children of one of their parents by stoning him or her to death breaks down the
family and can only cause irreparable damage to the children, once they learn why their
father or mother will never return to them. Allah took him or her away, out of his divine
"compassion." Also, this irreversible punishment forever shuts down any hope of
reconciliation between the fractured married couple. It is true that the witnesses can
stop the punishment under certain conditions by not initiating it (Muslim no. 4196, and
the translators note 2161; and Maududi 3:308-09). But what if the rocks are thrown
and the criminal is killed, but later on the offended party changes his or her mind? By
then, it is too late.

My Response:

Again I can use the argument of a criminal going to jail and that
disappoints the child or a convicted murderer being put on death row. James just fails to
understand the harmful effects of adultery. He underestimates it and does not believe that
a harsh punishment should be its consequence.

James
said:

The second confusing policy in
sharia is the concealment of ones sexual crimes when the goal is to deter them and
preserve society. Maududi cites three hadiths that show Muhammad telling the criminals
that it had been better for them if they had concealed their crimes. First, this hadith
reports that Muhammad says: "If any of you is guilty of any immorality, he should
better remain hidden under the curtain of Allah, but if he discloses it to us, we shall
certainly enforce the law of Allah on him" (Maududi 3:305). Second, the following one
says that a man confessed his sin to the prophet, so he ordered the man to be stoned to
death. But at the same time he said to the condemned man: "Would that you had kept
the matter hidden: this would have been better for you" (3:305). Finally, Maududi
cites this hadith that has Muhammad saying: "You should yourselves pardon the crimes
which merit prescribed punishment because when a crime which calls for such a punishment
comes to my notice, it will become obligatory on me to award the punishment" (3:305)

However, this concealment
contradicts the ultimate purposes of punishing zina: to preserve the family and
society and to deter future sexual criminals. These three hadiths say just the opposite.
Instead, Islamic law only encourages criminals to go further underground, rather than
confess their crimes openly in order to receive help and healing. Concealment serves only
to make society collapse secretlythat is, if Muslim apologists are to be believed
about the danger of sexual sins being the only factor in a large civilizations
downfall.

My Response:

Again I beg to differ. You cannot have the same amount of
fornication and adultery going on if people are forced to do it in secrecy. It will be
more difficult and so many would not take the risk. A second thing is that if it were not
done in public, then it would not influence as many people to go ahead and do it.

James said:

On the other hand, let us say that the
offended spouse drags the offender into court, but does not have four eyewitnesses. Then
the criminal spouse will either have to lie in court and deny that he committed adultery,
or he will have to be honest in court and confess his crime and potentially suffer the
ultimate, irreversible penalty. If the adulterer lies in court, despite his honest and
sincere confession to his spouse, then Islamic law forces him into being a liar, and how
does this preserve the sanctity of marriage and therefore society?

My Response:

If there are no four witnesses then the spouse cannot drag the
other into court.

3. Islam orders death for
Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia
itself.

In 1989, Irans Supreme
Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic
Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriels role in inspiring the
Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed
the fatwa.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of
Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and
posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt
offended. The two pastors have beenconvicted
based on Australias vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read
from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the
Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have
been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in Englands parliament. They
have succeeded.
Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it
stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

Here are the classical legal
rulings.

First, the Muslim deserves death
for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597-98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his
Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about "Allahs name, His command, His
interdiction, His promise, or His threat"; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or
"anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not
belong to it"; (4) holding that "any of Allahs messengers orprophets are liars, or to deny their being
sent"; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of
the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended "the Prophets message . . . to
be the religion followed by the entire world."

It is no wonder that critical
investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the
sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars head.

The non-Muslims living under
Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)-(5)):

According to the discretion of
the caliph or his representative, the punishments imposed on non-Muslims for violating
these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying
anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free
speecheven repulsive speechand freedom of religion or conscience.

Ultimately, censorship testifies
to a lack of confidence in ones position and message. If the message of Islam were
truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its
prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to
their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.

How confident was Muhammad (and
todays Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect
his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

For the supporting article that
analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here.

My
Response:

Again James
criticizes Islam for something that is found in his bible, but only for sake of argument
let me agree with him and say that Jesus abolished the Old Testament laws. He is basically
saying that there was a point in time where God laid out immoral laws.

Didnt Jesus
say in Matthew 5:18

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
accomplished.

Now whats the
point of having the Law survived and preserved if it is not to be followed?

Lets look at the
verses from the bible

Then the LORD said to Moses:
"Take the blasphemer outside the camp . . . and the entire assembly is to stone him.
Say to the Israelites: If anyone curses God, he will be held responsible; anyone who
blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him.
Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes, he must be put to death."
(Leviticus 24:13-16)

The first speaker
said that fundamentalists do not allow an opportunity for a dialogue. I am going to object
to this. The Quran allows for people to have a dialogue. It says in the Quran in Surah 3
verse 64

Say: "O People of the Book! come
to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no
partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than
God." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are
Muslims (bowing to God's Will).

Is Religious
Fundamentalism a Stumbling Block to Freedom of Expression? What do you mean by freedom of
expression? If you mean that a person can speak without causing any harm to anyone or to
the community, I believe that Islam is not a stumbling block to the freedom of expression.

But if you mean
that a person without any hesitation can go and abuse anyone, he can criticize anyone, he
can blame anyone, then I would say that Islam is a stumbling block and not a stumbling
block to the freedom of expression. Let me clarify because there could be many situations.

If you say that a
person blames anyone, criticizes anyone or speaks against someone without any proof and
without any solid fact, then I would say that Islam is definitely a stumbling block to the
freedom of expression. because the Quran clearly mentions in Surah 104 verse 1

Woe to every (kind of) scandal-monger
and backbiter,

The Quran says in
Surah 49 verses 11-12

O ye who believe! Let not some men
among you laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former): Nor
let some women laugh at others: It may be that the (latter are better than the (former):
Nor defame nor be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames:
Ill-seeming is a name connoting wickedness, (to be used of one) after he has believed: And
those who do not desist are (indeed) doing wrong.

O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as
much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind
their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would
abhor it...But fear God: For God is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

What does the
Quran mean when it says that when you backbite you have the dead meat of your brother?
Because it is a double crime, speaking badly of anyone without any proof is in itself a
sin and eating dead meat it self is a sin. The doctor can testify that if we eat dead meat
we can have several diseases.

But speaking
behind the back of someone is a double crime. It is as though you are eating the dead meat
of your brother. The cannibals who eat dead meat and who also eat human beings, never
touch their own brother. So if you backbite it is as though you are eating the dead meat
of your brother.

Now some people
may say that freedom of speech, whether you write or whether you speak does not harm
people physically. I do agree with them but let me tell you that the mental torture at
many times could me more harmful than physical torture. It is much more long lasting than
physical torture.

Id like to
give an example; lets say a teacher picks up a certain student from the classroom and
without any reason slaps that small child and that child is a good student and has done
nothing wrong. The slap may hurt the child for a few seconds or minutes but the mental
trauma that he has suffered by being humiliated in front of the entire class is more long
lasting.

Lets look at
another example; now if the teacher took the child to a private room with no one around
and slapped him, the student would only feel pain for a few seconds or minutes. But if the
teacher were to insult the child and humiliate him in front of the entire class, the
mental torture (the fact that he has been humiliated in front of the class) is much more
severe. Indeed any one of us would surely choose to take the slap instead.

So speech and
writing could cause more harm but not always than physical torture.

Now where does
the Quran talk about freedom of speech? The Quran is the only Holy Scripture that I know
of which gives mankind a way on how to prove the Quran wrong.

One of the
challenges that the Quran poses is from Surah 4 verse 82

Do they not consider the Quran (with
care)? Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein much
discrepancy.

But the Quran
says bring your proof in Surah 2 verse 111

Do you think all
these people like Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nisreen are producing proof? They are not.

Islam allows
freedom of expression as long as you bring your proof.

Now still there
are varying situations.

Suppose a
government official working the US government sells all the details of the American army
to the enemy. He is speaking the truth and he does have evidence (blueprints of the
armys plans), do you think that the American government will give that person an
award? Now there are certain types of proofs or information that are meant to be kept
secret and not revealed. Islam does not permit for that information to be revealed by the
person freely expressing himself.

But lets say for
example that the government official speaks against the corruption of the government in
America, Quran gives them full right. Islam encourages such truth to be told in public
against falsehood (Surah 17 verse 81).

In Iran an academic was condemned to
death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting
Muhammad and Shiite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

This
analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many
examples.

Apostates are those who leave
Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they
become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according
to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.

This hadith, representing many
others, says that some atheists were brought to Ali, Muhammads son-in-law and
cousin, and he burned them alive.

The news of this event reached
Ibn Abbas [Muhammads cousin and highly reliable transmitter of traditions] who said,
"If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allahs Messenger
forbad it, saying, Do no punish anybody with Allahs punishment (fire). I
would have killed them according to the statement of Allah Messenger, Whoever
changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Bukhari, Apostates, no.
6922)

Evidently, these atheists were
once Muslims, but they no longer followed Muhammads way. The Islam of Ali and Ibn
Abbas, Muhammads family, would not tolerate freedom of religion, so Ali burned them
alive (Ibn Abbas would have beheaded them).

See the previous reason no. three
for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Here are the articles that
support reason no. two.

This is a short, but full article
on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages. This older but still accurate
dictionary has a
brief entry on apostasy. Scroll down to "Apostasy from Islam."

This mid-sized
chapter on apostasy was written by an older generation Christian who knew Islam and
Arabic thoroughly. It also analyzes some legal rulings in Islam on apostasy. This is a short section
in an online book. It surveys the main ideas on apostasy. This short entry
in the Index to Islam has a list of Quranic verses. This short
article contrasts Islam's coercion of conscience with Christianity's freedom of
conscience.

Finally, we let Muslims explain
how apostates should be treated.

Maududi in this booklet
argues that Sura 9:11-12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll
down to "The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates").

This website has an overview of Islam on
apostates. Apostates should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be
killed. Women apostates may be killed according to some schools of law, or she may be
imprisoned and whipped.

Dr Y. Zaki (a leading
British convert to Islam), emphasised this viewpoint in a discussion on BBC radio in 1991:
"Islam is not just a religion, it's a state, and Islam does not distinguish between
sacred and secular authority . . . apostasy and treason are one and the same thing."
Since treason is punishable by death, he argued, so too is apostasy.(Sunday Programme, BBC Radio 4, 12 May 1991)

Abul Ala Mawdudi
represents a similarly severe stand, arguing that Islam is not simply a religion like
Christianity, but a complete order of life embracing all spheres and serving as the basis
of society, state and civilisation. As such it is cannot allow itself to be made "the
toy of individual free wills". Fundamental differences cannot be accepted in such a
system (minor differences are), and an apostate who has demonstrated that he is not
willing to assimilate into his societys order must be cast out of it, for he has
rejected its very foundation. Mawdudi states that it is preferable for an apostate to
emigrate from a Muslim state, but if he stays he becomes a great danger to society,
spreading a malignant plague among the population which must be eliminated by the death
penalty.(Abul AlaMawdudi, The Punishment of the ApostateAccording to Islamic Law, Lahore: Islamic
Publications, 1963 Englishtranslation by
Syed Silas Hussain & Ernst Hahn, 1994. pp, 46-49)

"The law of apostasy is
equal to the man-made law of treason, with one important distinction; it is not tantamount
to denouncing or breaking with one's country. Renouncing Islam is regarded as a
betrayal of faith in God Himself and a denunciation of kinship. Capital punishment is the
penalty in man-made law for treasonable action and has become recognized internationally
as the norm or standard law for such a crime."

"Repentance is required
before executing the penalty. Sentence must be delayed for at least three days if there is
hope of repentance, even though the penitent is not sincere. Will any sort of man-made law
accept such repentance in a case of treason? No such understanding of human weakness has
been exhibited among the community of nations yet."((Abdulrahman Abdulkadir
Kurdi, The Islamic State: A Study Based on the Islamic Holy Constitution, (London:
Mansell Publishing Limited, 1984) p.52-53))

Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqi, seeking to counter the argument that the
Islamic punishment for apostasy is too severe, writes:

"If Islam were a mere
religion in the sense in which this term is commonly used, a hotchpotch of dogmas and
rituals, having no direct relation with the economic, political and social structure of
society, then such severe punishment for apostasy would have certainly been the height of
high-handedness because the change of religion would not have, in the least, disturbed the
social order. But the problem is that in Islam the Kingdom of Heaven whose foundations are
firstly laid in the heart of man is to be essentially externalised in every phase of
social set up i.e. in politics, in economics, in law, in manners and in international
relations. In such circumstances it is quite obvious that when a person rebels against the
Kingdom of Heaven within his heart, he commits high treason against the Kingdom of Heaven
on earth, the visible and concrete expression of the Kingdom of Heaven within the heart.
The persons who commit treason are always dealt with severely in every political order. A
stern attitude is always adopted by all sane governments against rebels and
disruptionists, and so is the case with Islam. There is nothing unusual in what Islam has
done. In Islam religion is not a matter of private relationship between man and Allah, but
is intertwined with society. So when he abandons Islam he in fact revolts against the
authority of the Islamic State and society."(Muhamamd Iqbal Siddiqi, The Penal Law of
Islam, (Lahore: Kazi Publications, 1979) p. 108-109

Now I have to admit, this is not a simple thing to understand. Most
Muslims might not fully comprehend it. I doubt that most non-Muslims could understand it
either, but that does not prove anything. The reason why the non-Muslim cannot understand
the law of apostasy in Islam is because they do not believe Islam to be the true religion.
Us Muslims know it. We do not merely believe it. We know it. These are Gods laws
that we are talking about here, this is not a joke. This is treason against God. People
cannot understand that. But again, that is a logical fallacy. The idea of rejecting
something just because you do not like it or agree with it means nothing. It proves
nothing.

You do not have to be a brainwashed Muslim to
understand it either. Millions and millions of people have converted to Islam voluntarily
(http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/4.php)
knowing about this apostasy law. But this did not stop them from examining Islam
objectively and not subjectively.

James said:

1. Islam commands offensive
and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to
Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived
in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD
632, he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale
wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to
the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor
that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000
jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and
Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic
treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?

What are some of the legalized
rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

My
Response:

Anti Islamics show one verse where it says, kill the
disbelievers wherever you see them(9:5)
and everyone believes that is what Islam teaches. They dont even bother reading the
verse before or after it or knowing the context of when it was sent down.

Most of Islamic critics arguments
are showing Quranic verses and Hadeeth that call for Jihad and fighting for the name of
Allah. But they never show you the context of the verses. THESE VERSES ONLY APPLY DURING
TIME OF WAR. I REPEAT, JIHAD VERSES ONLY APPLY DURING TIME OF WAR (readhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/islam_and_terrorism.htm, however for a more detailed and better understanding then you
definitely have to read Harun Yahyas book Islam Condemns Terrorism athttp://www.harunyahya.com/terrorism1.php)

(2) Jihadists may rape these
captured female prisoners of war. Ali, Muhammads cousin and son-in-law, did this,
even though he was married to Fatima, Muhammads daughter. In the hadith, the prophet
defended his son-in-law.

(3) Women and children must not
be killed during war, unless this happens to polytheists in a nighttime raid when
visibility was low. Whether polytheists or monotheists or fill-in-the-blank, this law is
unjust.

My
Response:

6: Bukhari: V4B52N256 The
Prophet passed by and was asked whether it was permissible to attack infidels at night
with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied,
Their women and children are from them.

There are many possible meanings for this Hadith. I was kind of
surprised when I read it at first. But we dont know the EXACT situation or what the
Prophet truly meant. Maybe, maybe THOSE particular women and children were planning to
fight against the Muslims with the enemy.

Maybe the Muslim army just could not have blown this chance to
attack the enemy that they still had to attack them no matter at what cost in order to
stop the risk of more blood shed (do a little bad for the greater good). I SERIOUSLY DOUBT
THIS IS CORRECT but I am just guessing.

Or the hadith is false. Because this is only ONE hadith and we have
so many other authentic hadith where the Prophet clearly prohibited the killing of
innocent women and children during time of war.

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 004, Book 052,
Hadith Number 257.

-----------------------------------------

Narrated By 'Abdullah
: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women
and children.

Volume 004, Book 052,
Hadith Number 258.

-----------------------------------------

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar
: During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of
women and children.

Saheeh Muslim

Book 019, Hadith
Number 4319.

------------------------------

Chapter : Prohibition
of killing women and children in war.

It is narrated on the
authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of
women and children.

Book 019, Hadith
Number 4320.

------------------------------

Chapter : Prohibition
of killing women and children in war.

It is narrated by Ibn
'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and
children.

Maliks Muwatta

Book 021, Hadith
Number 008.

-----------------------------

Section : Prohibition
against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Yahya related to me
from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab
said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him
and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from
Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men
fighting had said, 'The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my
sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would
have been rid of her.'"

Book 021, Hadith
Number 009.

-----------------------------

Section : Prohibition
against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Yahya related to me
from Malik from Nafi from Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and
grant him peace, saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he
disapproved of it and
forbade the killing of women and children.

Book 021, Hadith
Number 010.

-----------------------------

Section : Prohibition
against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Yahya related to me
from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham. He
went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions.
It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, "Will you ride or shall I get down?"
Abu Bakrsaid, "I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of
mine to be in the way of Allah."

Then Abu Bakr advised
Yazid, "You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah.
Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have
shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.

"I advise you ten
things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down
fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels
except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty,
and do not be cowardly."

THE PROPHET DIDNT SAY that only MUSLIM WOMEN AND CHILDREN
couldnt be killed during time of war (WOULDNT MAKE SENSE, WHY WOULD THEY FIGHT
THEIR OWN WOMEN AND CHILDREN).

IT IS OBVIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF THE
DISBELIEVERS.

It is only permissible when it is so dark enough that it is not
possible to distinguish between man and woman (http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=4215).
Obviously this was a strategy by the polytheists and they believed that the Muslims wont
attack them with their women and children being with them. They tried to use it as a
strategy, but failed.

James said:

(4) Old men and monks could be
killed.

My
Response:

James is referring
to Surah 9:29. But he forgets that everyone must be fought if they do not pay taxes. Even
the Muslims themselves!

1: Muslim: C9B1N29 Command For Fighting Against People So
Long As They Do Not Profess That There Is No Ilah (God) But Allah And Muhammad Is His
Messenger: When the Messenger breathed his last and Bakr was appointed Caliph, many Arabs
chose to become apostates [rejected Islam]. Abu Bakr said: I will definitely fight
against anyone who stops paying the Zakat tax, for it is an obligation. I will fight
against them even to secure the cord used for hobbling the feet of a camel which they used
to pay if they withhold it now. Allah had justified fighting against those who
refused to pay Zakat.

This is completely justified. If they go
against the Islamic rule and government they deserve to be punished. What else was Abu
Bakr supposed to do? In America if someone does not pay their taxes they can go to jail.
Does that make America unjust? In China they kill tax evaders (A New York Times article
describes the context and details of one businessman who was executed in China for tax
evasion (11 Mar. 2001). athttp://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/ndp/ref/?action=view&doc=chn41156e). You have to understand that these are God's laws.
It is probably difficult for a non-Muslim to understand this but from the Muslim
perspective it is completely justifiable. For God sake people get executed or punished for
crimes against man made laws, what do you expect to happen to people that break God's
laws?!!!!!!!

Zakah is one of the 5 pillars of Islam
and it is compulsory on everyone. It is compulsory even on the non-Muslim, this is called
Jizyah. Jizyah does not degrade the non-Muslim people, it actually brings equality. Since
the Muslims are obliged to pay Zakah, then why cant non-Muslims pay Jizyah? That brings
equality between the two.

The Jizyah is a tax levied on non-Muslims in lieu of
military service which is compulsory for Muslims but not for non-Muslims. The amount of
Jizyah is much less than the Zakat, which is levied on Muslims only. The non-muslims
paying Jizyah were exempt from compulsory military service in a Muslim State but were
entitled to full protection. (http://www.netmuslims.com/info/economic.html)

(5) A captured enemy of war could
be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One
time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract
information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.

(6) Enemy men who converted could
keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced
conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a
non-Muslim.

My
Response:

This is a very silly
argument. He tries to show surah 8:70 in order to justify this. The verse says nothing
about such a thing. The verse simply states that God is telling Muhammad to offer Islam to
them and that Islam is better than all the materialistic desires of this world. That is
it. They did not force them. The Meccans could have simply lied, taken their property back
and then ran away if they didnt want to convert in their hearts.

7:
Bukhari: V5B59N702 Allah did not admonish anyone who had not participated in the
Ghazwa [raid] of Badr, for in fact, Allahs Apostle had only gone out in search of
the Quraysh caravan so that he could rob it. But Allah arranged for the Muslims and their
enemy to meet by surprise. I was at the Aqaba pledge with Allahs Apostle when we
gave our lives in submission, but the Badr battle is more popular amongst the people. I
was never stronger or wealthier than I was when I followed the Prophet on a
Ghazwa.

Ghazwa
means battle and not raid. STOP GIVING PEOPLE MISCONCEPTIONS CRAIG! Yes the Prophet
originally did want to have the caravan raided. READ HISTORY and understand why the
Prophet wanted to. The Prophet and his companions were driven out of Mecca! They lost all
their possessions and those pagan Meccans took it. They Muslims needed to gain back what
they lost! That caravan was carrying resources to Mecca that the Mecca pagans would have
most likely used against the Muslims. So these are two reasons why the Prophet wanted the
caravan raided if not more.

War

Relations between Mecca and Medina
rapidly worsened (see surat al-Baqara.) Meccans confiscated all the property
that the Muslims had left in Mecca. In Medina, Muhammad signed treaties of alliance and
mutual help with neighboring tribes.

Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca. Caravan
raiding was an old Arabian tradition; later Muslim apologists justified the raids by the
state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims. Secular scholars will
add that this was a matter of survival for the Muslims as well. They owned no land in
Medina and if they did not raid, they would have to live on charity and whatever wage
labor they could find.

Topics and their Interconnection
This portion deals with the problems of the "Spoils of War". The Quran says that
these are not the spoils of war but the "Bounties of Allah" and proves this by
showing that the victory at Badr (and in all other battles, too,) was won by His succour
and not by the efforts of the Muslims. It also declares (in v. 40) that the war aim of the
Muslims should be to eliminate all unfavourable conditions for the establishment of Islam
and not to gain spoils. Moreover, the spoils, being the bounties of God, belong to Allah
and His Messenger and they alone are entitled to allocate them. Then after conditioning
the Muslims to accept these things, the different shares have been allocated in v. 41. 1
- 41

James said:

(8) Civilian homes may be
destroyed.

(9) Civilian fruit trees may be
destroyed.

My
Response:

James is using Surah
59:5 to justify this. Allah gives the reason why he ordered the Prophet to have those
fruit trees to be cut down and that was in order for no fighting to occur. It was a
brilliant military strategy that left no casualties. It would have either been the fruit
trees or human beings killed (from fighting in a war). Read more about it from the Quranic
tafseer

The Banu Nadir was
permitted to take as many of their belongings as they could on their beasts of burden.
Some of them ripped out the doors and windows of their homes and loaded them onto their
camels. Many of them destroyed what was left of their homes so that it might not be usable
to the Muslims. The Qur'an draws attention to this irony:

"And caused such upheaval in their hearts that they let
their houses be demolished by their own hands." (Qur'an 59: 2)

The Muslims simply destroyed the remaining houses left. They were
not going to be used. The Banu Nadir tribe was exiled and they took with them all the
possessions they were able to take. Its not like they were left with nothing with all
their valuables destroyed along with their houses.

The Prophet prohibited destroying houses and trees but Banu Nadir
was a specific case.

Maliks Muwatta

Book 021, Hadith Number 010.

-----------------------------

Section : Prohibition
against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Yahya related to me
from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham. He
went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions.
It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, "Will you ride or shall I get down?"
Abu Bakrsaid, "I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of
mine to be in the way of Allah."

Then Abu Bakr advised
Yazid, "You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah.
Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have
shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.

"I advise you ten
things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy
an inhabited place. Do not slaughter
sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal
from the booty, and do not be cowardly."

We must not let our
subjective opinions establish the criteria as to what is right and wrong. We must be
objective. If we examine the Sharia Law objectively, we can only but conclude that it is
the most effective.

James presented
other arguments, however they needed to be examined more critically and taken into context
so I do not blame him for his sincerity (if he is sincere) in searching for the truth.